The DOL mandated that the employer must derive no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities and that the opportunity will be strictly for the benefit of the intern. They also demanded that the experience be given in an “educational environment,” that the intern must not displace regular employees, that the worker is not automatically hired and that both parties understand that no wages will be paid. It’s hard to imagine a set of rules more likely to shut down these opportunities. . . .

"Derive no immediate advantage"? Doesn't the Obama administration realize that the students benefit from the training (no one forced them to work for free) and the students might also value seeing what they are doing put to use while they are they? The claim was that it would be great to make sure that people got paid for their work. But what a lot of young people have found is that they no longer have jobs. From the Wall Street Journal:

In June, Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib, former interns at W Magazine and the New Yorker, respectively, sued the publisher in Federal District Court in Manhattan, alleging that it violated federal and state labor laws. They plan to ask a judge to give their lawsuit class-action status on behalf of Condé Nast interns.

Mr. Leib alleged that the New Yorker paid him well below minimum wage—in stipends of $300 to $500—for each of the two summers he had worked at the prestigious weekly, where he reviewed and proofread articles. Ms. Ballinger alleged in the complaint that she was paid $12 a day for shifts of 12 hours or more at the fashion magazine. . . .